You have to trust that men are always who they say they are
Can women have anything for women? No.
A woman who is suing a rape crisis charity says she felt unable to speak at a support group after a transgender woman began attending the same meeting.
“Sarah”, who says she was raped in her 20s, stopped going to the sessions, saying she became uncomfortable sharing details of her past with the group.
She says the centre could have offered separate groups, telling the BBC: “I think my case is about women’s rights.”
The charity, Survivors’ Network says it plans to vigorously defend the claim.
It says male victims of sexual violence are referred to neighbouring services, but trans women “are welcome into all of our women-only spaces”.
They shouldn’t be. Trans women are men, and women who are rape victims should be able to have support groups that don’t have any men in them.
However, Sarah’s lawyers claim that by adopting a trans-inclusive approach – and not providing a session for women who were born female – the charity, in Brighton, failed to meet the needs of all sexual violence victims.
But in adopting a “trans-inclusive” approach they adopted a “force women who are rape victims to be in the presence of men at their meetings” approach. Never mind about trans, just don’t force women to be around men when they’re there because they were raped.
She told the BBC she had been groomed and sexually abused when she was a child and later, in her 20s, a man she knew raped her. She did not go to the police.
Last year, she knew she was going to have to come into contact with the man who attacked her. “I was finding it really hard to cope and I was having increased anxiety attacks,” she says. “So I decided to approach Survivors’ Network for help.”
She found the group sessions very helpful.
She added: “We spoke a lot about how we were manipulated and coerced by men. I can’t tell you how much it helped me mentally.”
Sarah says a new person attended a session, whom she understood to be a trans woman. She said the person presented as typically male, wearing male clothing. “I was a bit taken aback. I decided I wasn’t going to speak that week because I wasn’t comfortable.”
“I don’t trust men because I have been raped by a man. I’ve been sexually abused by men. And I just don’t necessarily trust that men are always who they say they are,” she said.
She wouldn’t, would she. She was groomed and abused as a child – she has every reason not to trust that men are always who they say they are. How is she supposed to know that the man who attended the session was what he said he was? Seriously: how is she supposed to know? How is anyone? What is to stop predatory men saying they’re trans so that they can go to rape counselling sessions and terrorize the women there? How does anyone know this is not happening routinely all over the UK? How can anyone know? All that’s required is the man’s assertion.
This isn’t even about “transphobia” or “being against trans rights,” it’s about “how the fuck do you think you know?” Maybe exactly zero of the men who do this are genuinely trans, maybe every single one of them is simply taking advantage of this grotesque policy.
Meanwhile, Survivors’ Network, which is funded by a number of bodies, including the Ministry of Justice and the NHS, said in a statement: “Continuing to deliver our services supporting survivors of sexual violence and abuse is of paramount importance and we want to reassure all our current survivors and anyone seeking support that we are still here for them.”
But they’re not. They refuse to provide women-only services, so they’re not still here for them.
With all of these court cases, I wonder if there is eventually going to be a ruling that finds that “transwomen” are not women at all, but are actually men. More and more, it seems that spelling it out like this is what it’s going to take. Nottingham Council didn’t take the Forstater decision on board when they cancelled Julie Bindel’s event (cancelling a lesbian during Pride month, go you!) I don’t know if the bench can rule on reality any more than governments can legislate reality, but the law sets ground rules on how things operate. Law requires clear meanings and definitions, not as Stonewall would like them, but as the laws themselves stipulate them. If going “beyond” or “ahead” of the law screws women over, perhaps it’s time to go back to what the law actually is. Stonewall has been allowed to run loose and shit on lawns for too long; it’s time that it be muzzled, chained, and caged. If a few more court cases can highlight its incorrect advice and recommendations regarding the law, so much the better.
Is there any other kind? Seriously?
And once again the logic of the “Schrödinger’s Rapist” argument is highly relevant here: If, say, a woman on the subway is signaling that she just wants to be left alone (wearing headphones, reading, texting, looking away, showing no active interest, answering in monosyllabic words…) and in spite of this you still insist on starting up a conversation, you are telling her something very important about yourself: That her boundaries don’t matter to you, that whatever she may or may not want is not going to stop you from going after what you want. You just became a greater perceived threat, and rightly so.
But it takes a special kind of entitled asshole to force his presence on women who have already been raped and are seeking help for their trauma. Red alert!
I wonder which group they expect transmen to attend.